EV Digest 6178
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) RE: Suppressors for EV radios
by "Dewey, Jody R ATC COMNAVAIRLANT, N422G5G" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) RE: Input on diagram please
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) EBAY sleeper in Riverside CA
by Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) RE: EBAY sleeper in Riverside CA
by "damon henry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) RE: Input on diagram please
by Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: New Thunder-Sky Lithium Ion Battery 30Ah - 800Ah
by "Peter Gabrielsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Suppressors for EV radios
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Re: EVs on Fox TV today
by Chip Gribben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: [EV] Re: EVs on Fox TV today
by Eduardo Kaftanski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Using AA's NiMH instead of Lead Acid?
by Tony Hwang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Re: Suppressors for EV radios
by GWMobile <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Some KillaCycle Pictures
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Re: Using AA's NiMH instead of Lead Acid?
by Danny Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) powerbeam fly-cylinder at Calstart meeting
by Robert Baertsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Re: Input on diagram please
by "Paul G." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Some KillaCycle Pictures
by John Wayland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Using AA's NiMH instead of Lead Acid?
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
18) Re: Suppressors for EV radios
by "Michael Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
19) Re: Input on diagram please
by John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
20) Re: Some KillaCycle Pictures
by "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
21) Re: Using AA's NiMH instead of Lead Acid?
by Tony Hwang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
22) Re: Suppressors for EV radios
by nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Actually the noise inherent in AM transmission is because the audio is stripped
off of the carrier by amplitude. Spikes change the audio level and therefore
come right through. In FM right before the audio is stripped off the modulated
wave goes through a limiter which clips the top and bottom off of the wave.
The spikes are eliminated before the wave gets the audio stripped. If you are
hearing a squeel in an FM radio it is from the amplifier AFTER the detection.
That is why you address power input filtering so that you eliminate the spikes
from the DC that feeds the audio amplifier section.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Phil Marino
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:37
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Suppressors for EV radios
>From: Dave Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Suppressors for EV radios
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:25:25 -0800 (PST)
>
>I thought a lot of the noise difference between AM and FM was due to
>the type of modulation. In AM the data is determined by changing the
>amplitude of the wave. In FM the data is determined by changing the
>frequency of the wave. AM is noisier because interference, like
>lightning, causes spikes in the wave, affecting the amplitutde and thus
>the information being broadcast. FM isn't affected in the same way.
>
>Yes/no?
Yes - well said.
Phil
>
>Dave Cover
> > >> VHF radio (FM) will work a lot better than SW (AM) due to the
> > >> clicks not being as strong way up the spectrum.
> >
> > > You meant to say it is better because of *type* of modulation
> > > (FM), not because the FM radio stations carrier frequency just
> > > happen to be way higher, right?
> > >
> > > At 100 MHz but AM, mod the noise from the radio would be almost as
> > > horrible as at 1600 kHz.
> >
> > Actually, no. AM is used on VHF radio for some services (notably
> > television and aircraft radio); it has a little more noise than FM,
> > but not much.
> >
> > Broadcast FM radio owes most of its noise immunity to being higher
> > frequency (so impulse noise is greatly weaker), and to being
> > wideband (many times wider per channel than broadcast AM).
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get the latest Windows Live Messenger 8.1 Beta version. Join now.
http://ideas.live.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
It is a snubber circuit. Great explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snubber
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tony Hwang
Sent: November 28, 2006 9:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Input on diagram please
I can't help u much, I'm still learning and I don't know electronics, but I
can help you with a question. :)
What's the purpose of all those diodes and other circuit parts around the
heater core?
- Tony
John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: EVers,
I have been working on a EV diagram for a while and I would very much like
some input. I put it on my lame excuse for a web page where it will stay for
a month or two.
http://webpages.charter.net/belchertownev/
It is there as a jpg or you can just download a PDF here
http://webpages.charter.net/belchertownev/EVDiagram.pdf
Thanks in advance.
John
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Noticed this cruising through EBAY motors
A John Wayland type vehicle no Engine or Transmission.
Item: 180057436143
1973 Datsun : 510- Local pick up only
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I had one of these sitting about 4 blocks from my home earlier this month
for $250. I thought about it and decided not to clutter up my driveway.
Not only do I have John's two Datsun 1200s as inspiration, but my first car
was a Datsun 510, so there was definitely a desire.
Damon
From: Bruce Weisenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: EBAY sleeper in Riverside CA
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 10:42:52 -0800 (PST)
Noticed this cruising through EBAY motors
A John Wayland type vehicle no Engine or Transmission.
Item: 180057436143
1973 Datsun : 510- Local pick up only
____________________________________________________________________________________
Cheap talk?
Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.
http://voice.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000002msn/direct/01/?href=http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Here a few things to consider:
If you can, put the breaker in the middle of the pack, so that when it is
switched, the total voltage will be 72 volts
Is it possible to have only a single shunt? This will reduce resistance in
the main motor circuit.
I seem to recall that a diode might be needed on the motor blower relay.
Hopefully Lee can comment.
Don Cameron, Victoria, BC, Canada
see the New Beetle EV project www.cameronsoftware.com/ev
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John
Sent: November 28, 2006 7:36 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Input on diagram please
EVers,
I have been working on a EV diagram for a while and I would very much like
some input. I put it on my lame excuse for a web page where it will stay for
a month or two.
http://webpages.charter.net/belchertownev/
It is there as a jpg or you can just download a PDF here
http://webpages.charter.net/belchertownev/EVDiagram.pdf
Thanks in advance.
John
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Meant to say
Alternatively
TS-LFP80AHA 3.2V 80AH 240A 1000 220x145x61 3.0kg
300kg, 320V >50kW, 24kWh, $14k.
On 11/29/06, Peter Gabrielsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about this then...
TS-LFP150AHA 3.2V 150AH 450A 1000 285x182x71 5.3kg
100 cells gives you a 530kg pack, 320V, 48kWh, >100kw for $30k or less
than 10 cents per mile assuming 200 mile range and 1500 cycles.
Probably much less since you're not likely to go 200 miles between
every charge.
Alternatively
TS-LFP80AHA 3.2V 80AH 240A 1000 220x145x61 3.0kg
How about this then...
TS-LFP150AHA 3.2V 150AH 450A 1000 285x182x71 5.3kg
300kg, 320V >50kW, 24kWh, $14k.
Personally I wouldn't buy them at this time since it's a lot of money
to spend on a pack that may not perform as advertised.
On 11/29/06, Joe Plumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For me they still don't work.
>
> Take this one for example:
> TS-LFP400AHA 3.2V 400AH 1200A 1000 452x289x71 13.5kg US$800
>
> To keep battery weight to 1000 lbs (454 kg) you can only get 30 of these
> batteries for a
> total voltage of less than 100 V for $24k. The weight has to come down, or
> the voltage
> has to go up to be worthwhile for me.
>
> The AH ratings are good and are what I think should be a good minimum for a
> battery.
>
> I think it won't be long until we have better battery choices at a decent
> price.
>
> >
> >
> >Thunder-Sky have released a new Lithium Ion battery which uses LiFeSO4 and
> >claim
> >3C continuous, 1500+ cycles and a good price. These cells look pretty
> >interesting if the claims have some truth in them. They are available from
> >Everspring.
> >
> >Regards, Rod Dilkes
> >www.dilkes-motors.com
> >
> >----- Forwarded message from "keith-Lau \\(everspring\\)"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 17:36:18 +0800
> > From: "keith-Lau \\(everspring\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: "keith-Lau \\(everspring\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Update: Lithium Ion Power Battery 30Ah - 800Ah
> > To: "keith-Lau \\(everspring\\)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >
> > Lithium ion Re-chargeable Power Batteries
> >
> > New battery models update: high capacity and high current.
> >BMS and
> >Charger availability.
> >
> >
> >
> > a.. Introduction of TS-LFP models with 3C high continous
> >current,
> >longer life cycle and are suitable for motor drive applications. Capacity
> >from
> >30Ah to 800Ah batteries with continous current from 90A to 2400A !.
> > Selection and Pricing :
> >http://www.everspring.net/txt/product-battery-pricing.htm or the bottom of
> >this
> >page.
> >
> >
> >
> > a.. TS-LCP models with lighter weight and smaller size have
> >extended the capacity to 600Ah.
> > Selection and Pricing :
> >http://www.everspring.net/txt/product-battery-pricing.htm or the bottom of
> >this
> >page.
> >
> >
> >
> > a.. Please ask for the aggressive volume-pricing break
> >
> >
> > a.. New battery management system (BMS) module is available.
> >See
> >attached reference document.
> > Each BMS module can control upto 10 cells for overvoltage
> >charging
> >protection and voltage monitoring of individual cell with LCD display
> >panel.
> >
> > BMS module - unit price US$500
> >
> > Display panel - unit price US$500
> >
> > a.. Custom-built matching charger for the BMS module.
> > The cost of a custom-built charger is US$ 750 per KW with
> >ordering
> >leadtime of 6-8 weeks in general.
> >
> > For example, if you have 14 cells of 100AH cells
> >(TS-LCP100AHA),
> >in order to charge it, you need 4.25v charging voltage per cell and the
> >charging
> >current is 0.3C or 33A. Therefore, the charger will be a 14x 4.25v x 33A =
> >1963
> >watts or 2 KW. The pricing of the charger will be US$ 1,500.
> >
> >
> > See the BMS and charger in action:
> >http://www.everspring.net/charger/
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Keith Lau
> >
> > Director
> >
> > Everspring Global Ltd.
> >
> > Hong Kong. Dubai. Austria
> >
> >
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > - LITHIUM ION RE-CHARGEABLE POWER BATTERY Selection Guide and
> >Pricing (in US$)
> >
> >
> >
> > TS-Series LCP model Lithium ion Power Batteries
> >
> > Light weight, small size, high current, high capacity at high
> >current, and are suitable for battery backup applications.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nominal Nominal Max Discharge Cycle Life Dimension
> >Weight List Price
> > Voltage capacity Current (80%DOD) (mm) (Kg)
> >US$
> > @ 0.3C (Continuous)
> >
> >
> > TS-LCP50AHA 3.6V 50AH 15A 300 190x116x46 1.6kg
> >US$100
> >
> > TS-LCP90AHA 3.6V 90AH 30A 300 215x115x61 2.4kg
> >US$180
> >
> > TS-LCP100AHA 3.6V 100AH 33A 300 220x145x61 3.0kg
> > US$200
> >
> > TS-LCP200AHA 3.6V 200AH 66A 300 285x182x71 5.5kg
> > US$400
> >
> > TS-LCP600AHA 3.6V 600AH 200A 300 452x288x71
> >14.8kg
> >US$1,500
> >
> > TS-Series LFP model Lithium ion Power Batteries
> >
> > 3C high current, high capacity at high current, longer life
> >cycle
> >and are suitable for motor drive applications.
> >
> > Nominal Nominal Max Discharge Cycle Life Dimension
> >Weight
> > List Price
> > Voltage capacity Current (80%DOD) (mm)
> >(Kg) US$
> > @ 0.3C (Continuous)
> >
> >
> > TS-LFP30AHA 3.2V 30AH 90A 1000 180x160x46 1.6kg
> >US$60
> >
> > TS-LFP80AHA 3.2V 80AH 240A 1000 220x145x61 3.0kg
> >US$160
> >
> > TS-LFP150AHA 3.2V 150AH 450A 1000 285x182x71 5.3kg
> >US$300
> >
> > TS-LFP400AHA 3.2V 400AH 1200A 1000 452x289x71 13.5kg
> >US$800
> >
> > TS-LFP800AHA 3.2V 800AH 2400A 1000 850x289x71 25kg
> >US$2,000
> >
> > TS-Series LCP model vs LFP model LCP model LFP
> >model
> >
> >
> > Operating Voltage: 2.8-4.25V 2.0-4.2V
> >
> > Nominal Voltage: 3.6V 3.2V
> >
> >
> > Max Discharge Current (Continuous): 0.3 C 3 C (C =
> >rated A)
> >
> > Max Discharge Current (pulse): 3 C 5 C (C = rated A)
> >
> > Maximum Charge Current: 0.3 C 0.3 C (C = rated A)
> >
> > Cycle Life: (80%DOD) 300 1000
> >
> > Cycle Life: (70%DOD) 500 1500
> >
> > Size over Norminal Capacity 33% larger
> >
> > Weight over Norminal Capacity 20% heavier
> >
> > Flame retarded Better
> >
> > Best Applications Energy storage Motor drive
> >
> >
> > Volume (Ah) Discount on List Price
> >
> > Per Order Discount %
> > less than AH ?
> > 200 0.00%
> > 1,000 5.00%
> > 3,000 7.00%
> > 5,000 10.00%
> > 10,000 15.00%
> > 15,000 20.00%
> > 20,000 25.00%
> > 40,000 28.00%
> > 60,000 30.00%
> > 80,000 30.00%
> > 100,000 32.00%
> > 200,000 33.00%
> > 400,000 34.00%
> > 600,000 36.00%
> > 800,000 38.00%
> > 1,000,000 40.00%
> >
> >
> >----- End forwarded message -----
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger.
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
>
>
--
www.electric-lemon.com
--
www.electric-lemon.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You are correct.
Fm is always quieter regardless of the frequency.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 9:31 am, Dave Cover wrote:
I thought a lot of the noise difference between AM and FM was due to
the type of modulation. In AM
the data is determined by changing the amplitude of the wave. In FM the
data is determined by
changing the frequency of the wave. AM is noisier because interference,
like lightning, causes
spikes in the wave, affecting the amplitutde and thus the information
being broadcast. FM isn't
affected in the same way.
Yes/no?
Dave Cover
>> VHF radio (FM) will work a lot better than SW (AM) due to the
>> clicks not being as strong way up the spectrum.
> You meant to say it is better because of *type* of modulation
> (FM), not because the FM radio stations carrier frequency just
> happen to be way higher, right?
>
> At 100 MHz but AM, mod the noise from the radio would be almost
> as horrible as at 1600 kHz.
Actually, no. AM is used on VHF radio for some services (notably
television and aircraft radio); it has a little more noise than FM,
but
not much.
Broadcast FM radio owes most of its noise immunity to being higher
frequency (so impulse noise is greatly weaker), and to being wideband
(many times wider per channel than broadcast AM).
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Same here. It was real slow and jittery. But I attribute that to the
fact I'm still in the dark ages with Dial Up.
Not sure about YouTube. The producer just said it could be accessed
from the Fox site or I could get a DVD from the TV News Clip Service.
Maybe we'll see you in DC in January.
Chip Gribben
Electric Vehicle Association of Washington DC
http://www.evadc.org
On Nov 29, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Electric Vehicle Discussion List wrote:
From: nikki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 29, 2006 2:16:45 AM EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EVs on Fox TV today
Great! I'll link to them from the BEVOB website.
Does anyone know if these will be permanent or are they likely to
be removed in a few days? I also had some major issues viewing it
on my computer - jittery as hell. I've got a fairly large ADSL
connection which normally is fine with video... Any one put it on
Youtube or anything like that?
Nikki.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:02:26PM -0500, Chip Gribben wrote:
> Same here. It was real slow and jittery. But I attribute that to the
> fact I'm still in the dark ages with Dial Up.
most of those video streams (except of course windows based ones)
you can do this:
press play
wait until playback start
press pause
wait until the video has downloaded
then watch it :)
--
Eduardo K. | Some say it's forgive and forget.
http://www.carfun.cl | I say forget about forgiving just accept.
http://e.nn.cl | And get the hell out of town.
| Minnie Driver, Grosse Point Blank
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So, been trying to figure out the cheapest way to get batteries for my EV
conversion, I've found this to be the cheapest:
UPG
UB12750, 75Ah, 53 pounds, $111.90
This comes out to $0.18 per Wh, which is the cheapest out of all deep cycle
AGM's that I've found. I'd be using 22 of these for a 264 volt pack, which
would weigh 1168 pounds.
Now, I tried researching other sources, and thought "why not mass produced
cells"? So, I calculated the costs for using this:
http://www.all-battery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=567
AA, 2.6mAh, 1.2V NiMH cel, weighs 0.06 pounds, with a cost of $0.75 cents each
in volume. This comes out to $0.24 per Wh, comparable to lead acid costs!
A 264V pack would weigh 660 pounds instead of 1168 pounds, and would get about
2.5 times the range. Is something like this doable? I'd need 11,000 cells
though, which is an aweful lot.
- Tony
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Sorry but that is really incorrect and I hate to leave something
fundementally wrong on the board uncorrected since so many people look
here for information.
.
Fm has less noise because it is frequency modulated rather than an
amplitude modulated signal.
That means the tuner only picks up a signal that is exactly within that
frequecy range AND it detuned or rectifies the signal ONLY by how much
it varys from the centerpoint of the tuned frequency. (Noise will almost
NEVER VARY within the frequecy and be rectified or "pickup" by the
reciever.)
Thus it is very hard for a spurious signal to occur in the frequecy
range AND have it shifting within that frequency range so the noise is
detuned or heard.
Am means any spurius radio signal that happens to cross the frequency
will be heard based on its signal strength - its amplitude . Since all
radio noise has some amplitude if it occurs at the frequenct of the
tuner it will be heard on the radio as noise.
Fm at any frequency is MUCH cleaner than am.
An am 1500 mhz signal will sound VERY noisy.
An fm signal at 150 kilohertz will still be almost completely noise
free.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 9:31 am, Lee Hart wrote:
James Massey wrote:
VHF radio (FM) will work a lot better than SW (AM) due to the
clicks not being as strong way up the spectrum.
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
You meant to say it is better because of *type* of modulation
(FM), not because the FM radio stations carrier frequency just
happen to be way higher, right?
At 100 MHz but AM, mod the noise from the radio would be almost
as horrible as at 1600 kHz.
Actually, no. AM is used on VHF radio for some services (notably
television and aircraft radio); it has a little more noise than FM, but
not much.
Broadcast FM radio owes most of its noise immunity to being higher
frequency (so impulse noise is greatly weaker), and to being wideband
(many times wider per channel than broadcast AM).
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes, globalwarming
and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Listers,
Here are the links to a few high-quality pictures of the bike, taken
in Las Vegas:
http://www.killacycle.com/BurnOut.JPG
http://www.killacycle.com/Run.JPG
http://www.killacycle.com/Launch.JPG
http://www.killacycle.com/Speed.JPG
and, of course, a team picture (at Bandimere Speedway:)
http://www.killacycle.com/KillaCycleTeam.JPG
You can see a nice write-up about the bike at
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=322
and, of course, the video you all have already seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dRpAZci9m0
Be sure to vote for the video if you like it. This moves it up in the
pecking order on the YouTube site. Watching it also moves it up, of course.
Bill Dube'
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Search the archives. NiMH has a very different charging procedure that
complicates their use in serial-parallel packs with large cell counts.
You'd think that if you put 2x 2.6AH NiMH in parallel, you'd get a 5.2AH
cell. Unfortunately, this just doesn't work because complications in
the charging procedure make charging (or I've heard even storing) in
parallel pretty much impossible.
Nor are long series strings problem-free. Unfortunately balancing the
charge is not as simple as a voltage regulator as in lead-acid.
There are charge controller strategies which can help balance the charge
but they are not as simple/reliable as lead acid regs. The difficulties
multiply with the number of cells. There are D cells of I think 9AH,
but even these are not large enough to reduce the cell count to a number
where a controller is very practical.
Danny
Tony Hwang wrote:
AA, 2.6mAh, 1.2V NiMH cel, weighs 0.06 pounds, with a cost of $0.75 cents each
in volume. This comes out to $0.24 per Wh, comparable to lead acid costs!
A 264V pack would weigh 660 pounds instead of 1168 pounds, and would get about
2.5 times the range. Is something like this doable? I'd need 11,000 cells
though, which is an aweful lot.
- Tony
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you thought flywheels can't work, check out the fly-cylinder
that has been in development for nearly a decade.
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=1046
The formula one guys are going to put a 44 lb unit in a race car
that will deliver 60 bhp with energy storage of 110 watt hours.
That doesn't sound like much but after talking with one of the
guys at the company, they are going to be able to increase the
rotation speed and have a much longer range after they bring
out their first product. They want to be conservative at first.
They are presenting in Pasedena at the Calstart inauguration in
a closed meeting to the committee which is made up of car companies,
oil companies and the biofuel crowd.
The plan is a car with the powerbeam fly cylinder for stops and starts,
batteries for 20 mile of range and a biofuel powered engine for trips
longer than 20 miles.
Watch for press releases after the calstart meeting.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Nov 28, 2006, at 7:35 PM, John wrote:
I have been working on a EV diagram for a while and I would very much
like some input. I put it on my lame excuse for a web page where it
will stay for a month or two.
Ideas as I work my way around the diagram:
After market fuse panel may not be required. If the vehicle came with
an electric radiator fan that circuit should be able to run the vacuum
pump. In fact, you may need to put a smaller fuse in the circuit - but
oversize (existing) wires never hurt anything. Often (in the automotive
world) relay control wiring and what it powers are on the same fuse.
Key switch input can often be the existing ignition coil power
(provided its fused, but most modern vehicles fuse that system.) Again,
a lower amp rated fuse may be needed but fuses are easy to change :-)
I would concern myself with monitoring battery amps before motor amps.
Battery amps and battery volts can work together to tell you the state
of charge of you battery pack (with a little experience.) If you plan
to really work the motor hard I would recommend a brush temp
thermocouple over motor amps or the (often) built in motor thermal
switch.
I'm not sure what you are indicating with the polarized capacitor in
the main contactor ground. A capacitor can't go there as it will look
like an open circuit once charged. The coil should have some type of
snubber across the coil input wires but that may be provided inside the
hairball.
The heater circuit is a place I don't recommend using a diode as a
snubber for the heater relay coil. It tends to be switched more than
the main contactor and a simple diode is the slowest dropout for the
relay. That would be hard on its contacts, even with snubbers. In a
lighted rocker switch the light goes to the load side, if you want the
light to be on only when the heater is on (refering to 3 wire lighted
switches.) It might be all the snubbing you would want (lamp, not LED,
for this to work.) I also don't see any need for a diode across the
heater core. I don't think its presents as an inductive load.
You are showing a 6-16 volt meter across your 144v battery pack. It had
better stay pegged for the few seconds it lasts :-)
You should include a fuse on the input and output of the DC to DC
converter. They can fail in strange ways. A common one for the older
Todd converters was to crowbar (short) the input. One or both of these
fuses may be a part of your DC to DC converter but if you can't see it
I wouldn't bet on it.
You did a nice job of drawing your proposed system up. I generally do
that on graph paper (I guess I don't have the right software <g>.) Then
I do it again on a clean sheet of paper after I'm happy. I find it so
much easier to draw while a crawl around the vehicle; as a result, none
of my wiring efforts has made it to computer format.
Paul "neon" G.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hello to Bill and All,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can see a nice write-up about the bike at
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=322
Your report and your timeslip show your trap speed at 145 mph, but the
above referenced article has it at 154 mph. Did you perhaps flip the 4
and 5? The ET is of course, the most important part, but I would think
you'd want the run listed correctly. You go on to say, "This is the best
time ever for any electric-powered vehicle (of any sort) in history" (no
argument on this), but since you're trying to establish this in
historical context, it should be correctly posted, wouldn't you think?
Besides, you don't want Dennis to start nit picking, do you? :-)
Again, congrats on this great accomplishment!
See Ya....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You might wish to research the battery cost, if you do go with the
UB12750's. They are cheaper elsewhere. Just off the top of the list,
http://www.ragebattery.com/power-sonic/mobilitybatteries.html has them for
$77.94.
That only comes to a bit over $1700, so you might wish to check w/ them.
They'll ship free if the order comes to over $2000, so may make you a deal.
Alternatively, order 26 batts and pair-match them for capacity. 26 units is
still $435 less than the price you quote. (Or, if you can stand an
additional 200 lbs, go with the 90 or 100AH batts.)
With the AA cells... that's something like 33,000 to 100,000 potential
failure points. It could be done, but I can't imagine single-testing all
those batts. <g> But, if it's 11,000 cells, your cost would be about 5 times
the price of the LA, would it not? (I'm seeing 60 units @ 44.79 per pack =
$8241 + shipping.) I don't know about your luck w/ these foreign made batts,
but I've had a 5% failure rate in the first dozen charges.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hwang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: Using AA's NiMH instead of Lead Acid?
> So, been trying to figure out the cheapest way to get batteries for my EV
conversion, I've found this to be the cheapest:
>
> UPG
> UB12750, 75Ah, 53 pounds, $111.90
>
> This comes out to $0.18 per Wh, which is the cheapest out of all deep
cycle AGM's that I've found. I'd be using 22 of these for a 264 volt pack,
which would weigh 1168 pounds.
>
>
> Now, I tried researching other sources, and thought "why not mass produced
cells"? So, I calculated the costs for using this:
>
> http://www.all-battery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=567
>
> AA, 2.6mAh, 1.2V NiMH cel, weighs 0.06 pounds, with a cost of $0.75 cents
each in volume. This comes out to $0.24 per Wh, comparable to lead acid
costs!
>
> A 264V pack would weigh 660 pounds instead of 1168 pounds, and would get
about 2.5 times the range. Is something like this doable? I'd need 11,000
cells though, which is an aweful lot.
>
> - Tony
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I am wondering if it might help to use an isolated power (batt) for the
radio? You can also buy a filter for the antenna. We used these on some of
our rigs where engine static interfered with reception.
I'm wondering if satellite radio might avoid picking up interference??? If
the CD player will work w/o picking up static, then this alternative might
also? If not, then record songs to one of the portable players and plug it
into the onboard radio.
...just something else to try...
----- Original Message -----
From: "GWMobile" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: Suppressors for EV radios
> Sorry but that is really incorrect and I hate to leave something
> fundementally wrong on the board uncorrected since so many people look
> here for information.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for the input everyone. Fist of all the easy ones.
I created the diagram with OmniGraffle (Its a Mac only program as far
as I know) Some of the symbols are from a "stencil" package I
downloaded for free and others were manually created with shapes. I'll
happily put the revised diagram up when its done and if anyone wants
the OmniGraffle file (or an exported EPS Vector Image) I can make that
available.
The currently unused battery loop shunt is for a planned future emeter
type device. My reasoning for using the motor loop ammeter is that I
understand that will give me vehicle "efficiency" information. One of
the main reasons I got the Zilla rather than a curtis was the ability
to set the battery amps at a level protecting my floodies, so at this
point I'm less concerned with battery amps.
The voltmeter listed as 6-16 should be labeled 115 - 175 it is intended
to be my traction pack volt meter.
I need to add a 6-16 volt gage for my accessory system.
Is there anything wrong with moving the traction pack volt meter
connections to the input side of the DC/DC and then the accessory
system 6-16 volt meter on the DC/DC output side? (I think this is what
Dave B. suggested)
Roland wrote: There should be Zener Overvoltage Transient Suppressors
which are
Bidirectional and connected across the coil of the main contactor or any
contactor.
JPOC:I believe my contactor came with such a part installed (either
from the manufacturer or by ElectroAuto who I bought my kit from), I
used the wrong symbol in my diagram (a capicitor rather than a diode)
I'm not sure how it is all connected in reality so my intent was to
represented it as a diode between the coil and ground, which is
probably incorrect.
I will have to think about adding the safety contactors that roland
suggests. Someone else commented off list to put a relay in the high
side. I think this provides similar functionality.
Phil wrote regarding same subject: Also, you show a capacitor (labeled
as "diode on contactor")in the ground lead of the contactor coil. I
think that coil lead should to right to ground. But, you should have
something across the contactor coil to limit the spike voltage when the
coil power is turned off. A good solution for this ( much better than
a single diode, which will delay the contactor opening, and cause
arcing and contact wear) is a zener diode ( 24 V or so) and a regular
diode in series ( back-to-back) across the coil. This will limit the
transient voltage to about the zener voltage, but still allow fast
opening of the contacts.
JPOC: How would this be represented using the symbols I have here. On
the actual contactor there are 4 tabs, 2 connected with what I believe
is a diode, and the other 2 power the coil (I assume that is the way it
works anyway)
Don C wrote:
If you can, put the breaker in the middle of the pack, so that when it
is
switched, the total voltage will be 72 volts
Is it possible to have only a single shunt? This will reduce
resistance in
the main motor circuit.
I seem to recall that a diode might be needed on the motor blower relay.
Hopefully Lee can comment.
JPOC:I want to put a breaker in the engine compartment so I can rig it
as an emergency disconnect, and all my batteries will be in the bed of
the truck so I think I am stuck with having it as shown in my diagram
unless I can rig a remote cable back to the bed from the drivers seat
area.
Regarding the diode in the motor blower relay I am interested in
further input, but I also need to check my manual to see if there is
actually a diode there already in the stock wiring..
Paul G. Wrote:
The heater circuit is a place I don't recommend using a diode as a
snubber for the heater relay coil. It tends to be switched more than
the main contactor and a simple diode is the slowest dropout for the
relay. That would be hard on its contacts, even with snubbers. In a
lighted rocker switch the light goes to the load side, if you want the
light to be on only when the heater is on (refering to 3 wire lighted
switches.) It might be all the snubbing you would want (lamp, not LED,
for this to work.) I also don't see any need for a diode across the
heater core. I don't think its presents as an inductive load.
JPOC:
The heater relay is a redrawing of the wiring diagram that came with
the KTA relay package I purchased. I can't say I understand any of it,
(I'm an economist afterall) so I think I will stick with what KTA
recommends. I'm interested in your comment about the rocker switch. Is
it providing an additional benefit other than telling me if the switch
is in the on position or not?
Thanks again for all the input and kind words.
John
On Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 10:35 PM, John wrote:
EVers,
I have been working on a EV diagram for a while and I would very much
like some input. I put it on my lame excuse for a web page where it
will stay for a month or two.
http://webpages.charter.net/belchertownev/
It is there as a jpg or you can just download a PDF here
http://webpages.charter.net/belchertownev/EVDiagram.pdf
Thanks in advance.
John
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
You are correct, I transposed the 5 and the 4. My mistake.
I think that the article was based on my post to this list, ironically enough.
Bill D.
\At 07:45 PM 11/29/2006, you wrote:
Hello to Bill and All,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can see a nice write-up about the bike at
http://www.megawattmotorworks.com/display.asp?dismode=article&artid=322
Your report and your timeslip show your trap speed at 145 mph, but
the above referenced article has it at 154 mph. Did you perhaps flip
the 4 and 5? The ET is of course, the most important part, but I
would think you'd want the run listed correctly. You go on to say,
"This is the best time ever for any electric-powered vehicle (of any
sort) in history" (no argument on this), but since you're trying to
establish this in historical context, it should be correctly posted,
wouldn't you think? Besides, you don't want Dennis to start nit
picking, do you? :-)
Again, congrats on this great accomplishment!
See Ya....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the info about the UB12750's, I'm probably going to end up using
them. A 5% failure rate, that's pretty bad! I have no doubts that
prices/performance will improve for battery technology, I just want something
NOW. :) With lead-acid being so "cheap", I guess it still wins out.
- Tony
Michael Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You might wish to research the battery
cost, if you do go with the
UB12750's. They are cheaper elsewhere. Just off the top of the list,
http://www.ragebattery.com/power-sonic/mobilitybatteries.html has them for
$77.94.
That only comes to a bit over $1700, so you might wish to check w/ them.
They'll ship free if the order comes to over $2000, so may make you a deal.
Alternatively, order 26 batts and pair-match them for capacity. 26 units is
still $435 less than the price you quote. (Or, if you can stand an
additional 200 lbs, go with the 90 or 100AH batts.)
With the AA cells... that's something like 33,000 to 100,000 potential
failure points. It could be done, but I can't imagine single-testing all
those batts. But, if it's 11,000 cells, your cost would be about 5 times
the price of the LA, would it not? (I'm seeing 60 units @ 44.79 per pack =
$8241 + shipping.) I don't know about your luck w/ these foreign made batts,
but I've had a 5% failure rate in the first dozen charges.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Hwang"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 2:20 PM
Subject: Using AA's NiMH instead of Lead Acid?
> So, been trying to figure out the cheapest way to get batteries for my EV
conversion, I've found this to be the cheapest:
>
> UPG
> UB12750, 75Ah, 53 pounds, $111.90
>
> This comes out to $0.18 per Wh, which is the cheapest out of all deep
cycle AGM's that I've found. I'd be using 22 of these for a 264 volt pack,
which would weigh 1168 pounds.
>
>
> Now, I tried researching other sources, and thought "why not mass produced
cells"? So, I calculated the costs for using this:
>
> http://www.all-battery.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=567
>
> AA, 2.6mAh, 1.2V NiMH cel, weighs 0.06 pounds, with a cost of $0.75 cents
each in volume. This comes out to $0.24 per Wh, comparable to lead acid
costs!
>
> A 264V pack would weigh 660 pounds instead of 1168 pounds, and would get
about 2.5 times the range. Is something like this doable? I'd need 11,000
cells though, which is an aweful lot.
>
> - Tony
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks to everyone for all the advice here! It's like a mini Physics
lesson in an email! :)
I may hold off on the radio plans in the CityEl and stick with my mp3
player via a cassette adaptor in the stereo. With the pickup and
minor projects I will plan the radio from the word go!
It has got me thinking though - do we have a WIKI set up for people
to put topics like this in? I think a Wiki would be a great way of
collating our group's knowledge in an online format - perhaps
slightly better than an email archive?
Regards
Nikki.
_______________________________
Old car? New tricks?
Visit aminorjourney.com to see the transformation from Hebe to EV.
E-minor isn't just a key any more...
_______________________________
On 29 Nov 2006, at 20:38, GWMobile wrote:
Sorry but that is really incorrect and I hate to leave something
fundementally wrong on the board uncorrected since so many people
look here for information.
.
Fm has less noise because it is frequency modulated rather than an
amplitude modulated signal.
That means the tuner only picks up a signal that is exactly within
that frequecy range AND it detuned or rectifies the signal ONLY by
how much it varys from the centerpoint of the tuned frequency.
(Noise will almost NEVER VARY within the frequecy and be rectified
or "pickup" by the reciever.)
Thus it is very hard for a spurious signal to occur in the frequecy
range AND have it shifting within that frequency range so the noise
is detuned or heard.
Am means any spurius radio signal that happens to cross the
frequency will be heard based on its signal strength - its
amplitude . Since all radio noise has some amplitude if it occurs
at the frequenct of the tuner it will be heard on the radio as noise.
Fm at any frequency is MUCH cleaner than am.
An am 1500 mhz signal will sound VERY noisy.
An fm signal at 150 kilohertz will still be almost completely noise
free.
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 9:31 am, Lee Hart wrote:
James Massey wrote:
VHF radio (FM) will work a lot better than SW (AM) due to the
clicks not being as strong way up the spectrum.
Victor Tikhonov wrote:
You meant to say it is better because of *type* of modulation
(FM), not because the FM radio stations carrier frequency just
happen to be way higher, right?
At 100 MHz but AM, mod the noise from the radio would be almost
as horrible as at 1600 kHz.
Actually, no. AM is used on VHF radio for some services (notably
television and aircraft radio); it has a little more noise than
FM, but not much.
Broadcast FM radio owes most of its noise immunity to being higher
frequency (so impulse noise is greatly weaker), and to being
wideband (many times wider per channel than broadcast AM).
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in -- Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377,
leeahart_at_earthlink.net
www.GlobalBoiling.com for daily images about hurricanes,
globalwarming and the melting poles.
www.ElectricQuakes.com daily solar and earthquake images.
--- End Message ---
